Is Wikipedia a reliable source for credible information?
Posted by | Posted in Society Debates, Technology Debates
photo taken from taragana.com
Is Wikipedia a reliable source for credible information?
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
Not even a chance!
It has been for me.
Just my not-so-humble opinion. B)
Well Wikipedia defines reliability as, "In general, reliability (systemic def.) is the ability of a person or system to perform and maintain its functions in routine circumstances, as well as hostile or unexpected circumstances." So since Wikipedia isn't down all the time it must be reliable, I mean Wikipedia says so.
How about credible? I think that was the key word there.
Can I say yes?
I would say Wikipedia is reliable 90% of the time, like many websites. And like most websites, you are not supposed to assume everything written on their as truth, and you are supposed to pick and choose what is the truth. While a user-edited encyclopedia can lead to vandalism, most of the time it regulates itself perfectly, and since it is user-edited, naturally, it explains the good, as well as the criticism, about any person, event, or idea.
Although Wikipedia isn't a website you can cite to a research paper, it is an overall reliable source of information, for people who are interested in true knowledge, rather than a grade. Of course, there are websites and books which go into topics in more depth, Wikipedia is a great website for a person to get their feet wet in five minutes.
Depends on who edited it last.
British scientists who work for Nature Magazine have determined that wikipedia is more accurate when it comes to science than an actual encyclopedia
Only for general info. There's as much of a political bias to Wikipedia as there is in Conservapedia, and it's a natural result of who updates them.
No way, show me one article that is.
Here read this
http://newsbusters.org/node/5043
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!……….that being said i feel it is not bc any tom dick or harry can edit it
Not really misty. It's very hard these days to edit something.
Of course not. When Wikipedia is right, which it is most of the time, it's just fortunate. Facts are not something we should be voting on. If there are mistakes on Wikipedia, and there certainly are, they stay up until someone corrects them. This is not how a reliable site would operate.
I could make an account and edit anything I want in 5 minutes, and as long as it sounds like it could be right, they aren't going to second guess it.